IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 23 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025. Lalit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide FIR No. 148 of 2023, dated 11.10.2023 registered in Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. As per prosecution case, Naresh Kumar and Lalit Kumar (the petitioner) had beaten 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Madan Lal (since deceased) who died as a result of injury to his facial structure leading to haemorrhagic shock. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.10.2023. The co-accused was enlarged on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the deceased Madan Lal was operating the JCB of contractor Nagesh Bansal. He was residing in a tin shack constructed on Shambhuwala to Kul Road. His brother Vijay Kumar received information that Madan Lal had died. The police also reached the spot and recorded the statement of the informant Vijay Kumar. He revealed that Naresh and Lalit had beaten Madan Lal to death. The police conducted the investigation. As per the postmortem report, the deceased died as a result of injury to the facial structure, leading to 3 haemorrhagic shock and blunt trauma. The police arrested Naresh Kumar and Lalit. The viscera of the deceased were sent to FSL, and as per the result of analysis, the deceased had 124.23 mg% ethyl alcohol in his blood. The petitioner’s clothes were also found to be blood-stained. The result of the DNA analysis is awaited. As per the investigation, Madan Lal used to take liquor and abuse their fellow labourers in a state of intoxication. Madan abused Naresh and Lalit, and they sent him to his home after pacifying him; however, Madan Lal stopped their motorcycle on the other side of the bridge and abused them. When Naresh and Lalit went near Madan Lal, he tried to slap Naresh Kumar. However, Naresh Kumar ducked. Lalit got infuriated. He took up a pickaxe lying on the spot and hit Madan Lal with it. Madan Lal succumbed to his injuries. Naresh and Lalit fled away from the spot on their motorcycle. The challan has been prepared and presented before the Court. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 06.06.2025. The petitioner is a resident of a different State. He is the main accused. He can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4 3. I have heard Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity because the co-accused was released on bail by this Court. The grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal. The Trial has not progressed; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail due to delay. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission:  Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 1662 of 2025 decided on 25th March, 2025.  Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & anr. 2025 INSC 162  Sri Darshan vs. The State of Karnataka NC 2024:KHC 51482  Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs. State of Chattisgarh 2023(1) JKJ 180. 5 5. Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has not taken any plea in the petition that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him and there is no basis for this submission. The co-accused was released on bail because the Court had found that he could not have shared any common intention with the petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous, and the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief, which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that; 6 (a) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, the severity of the punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations; (b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail. 13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528, where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: 7 (a) The nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction, and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of a threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)” 8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed: 7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus: ‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; 8 (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.’ 9. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him, and his detention is illegal. There is a force in the submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General that there is not even a single whisper in the petition that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner; therefore, there is no factual basis to adjudicate this plea, and the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this ground. 10. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner had inflicted an injury on the victim’s head with a pickaxe. The weapon of offence used by the petitioner and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted, prima facie, connect the petitioner to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 11. It was submitted that there was a grave and sudden provocation because the deceased had abused the petitioner’s 9 father. The weapon of offence was picked up from the spot. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dauvaram Nirmalkar’s case (supra). It is premature to record any finding regarding grave and sudden provocation; however, the status report shows that the petitioner and his father had quarrelled with the deceased near the liquor vend and thereafter had inflicted the injury on his head. The petitioner and Naresh had a grudge with the deceased because he used to abuse his fellow labourers. The deceased had abused the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner and the co-accused went to pacify him, but he tried to slap Naresh Kumar. The petitioner inflicted injury on him with a pickaxe. All these circumstances, if accepted to be correct, do not make out a case of grave and sudden provocation. The nature of the abuse is not given, and it is not known whether the abuse was such as would lead any person to commit the breach of peace. It is, prima facie, doubtful that the verbal abuse would give rise to a grave and sudden provocation to justify the murder.2 An attempt to slap the co-accused will not confer a right upon the petitioner to cause fatal injury by an axe on the head. The causing of fatal injury on 2 Sainik Kanaiyalal Kalumal v. State, (1962) 3 Guj LR 739 & Deepchand Bahuguna v. State of C.G., 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2358 10 the head with a pickaxe and the previous grudge held by him against the deceased, prima facie, shows that the petitioner had taken advantage of the situation. 12. It was submitted that the co-accused was released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. This submission is not acceptable. The order passed by this Court shows that the co-accused was granted bail because he could not have contemplated that the petitioner would pick up the pickaxe and cause injury to the deceased. The petitioner has inflicted the actual injury, and this consideration will not apply to him. Therefore, he cannot seek bail on the principle of parity. 13. It was submitted that there is delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission is not acceptable. Certified copies of order-sheets placed on record show that the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournments on 02.04.2024, 06.06.2024, 07.08.2024, 30.09.2024 and 28.10.2024 for consideration of the charge. The charge was framed on 24.12.2024, and now the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 02.06.2025 till 06.06.2025. The adjournments were being 11 sought on behalf of the petitioner for consideration of the charge, and he cannot take any advantage of the adjournments sought by him. The fact that the learned Trial Court had listed the matter on consecutive dates shows the anxiety of the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted bail due to the delay in the progress of the trial. 14. No other point was urged. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. 16. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th May, 2024 (ravinder)